Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.....etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB
From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Glen, Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio Operator. Art, KC6UQH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Glen Zook Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM To: [email protected]; Mark Spencer Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K".
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer [email protected] wrote:
The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not.
It seems overly confusing to me.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
Actually, the "NATO" phonetic alphabet was NOT developed by the military. It was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the 1940s. It was adopted by NATO during the 1950s.
Again, my position is that the ICAO phonetics usually work very well with those who speak English as their first language. It works fairly well with those persons who do not speak English as their primary language but who have been specifically trained in the use of ICAO phonetics. It generally works very well on radio links that do not have extensive QRM or QSB. However, when dealing with untrained individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and when QSB and/or QRM is present, geographical names work considerably better.
The same arguments that are being presented herein are routinely posted in the discussions on QRZ.com concerning the "proper" phonetic alphabet. Frankly, the majority of people have made their decision and they are not going to change how they use the phonetic alphabets. Some use the ICAO phonetic alphabet no matter what and some people do adapt to the situation and use alternate phonetic alphabets of which the geographical name version is the most used of the alternate phonetic alphabets where amateur radio is concerned.
When working DX through a "pileup" the vast majority of time stations who use geographic names are going to get through a lot faster than those who insist on using just the ICAO phonetic alphabet. This is contrary to the opinion of those who insist that the ICAO phonetic alphabet "must" be used. However, for those stations who routinely work DX the vast majority do use geographical names when working DX. Now when working "stateside" the vast majority of those operators do use the ICAO phonetic alphabet.
I have "heard" these same arguments numerous times before concerning the ICAO phonetic alphabet versus geographical names. A relatively few persons who have insisted on the ICAO version do realize that the ICAO phonetics are not a "universal savior" where communications are concerned and do change their operating habits to fit the situation. But, those who insist that the ICAO version is the only "correct" phonetic alphabet generally are not convinced. Frankly, these discussions go on forever and no resolution ever happens. As such, those discussions are eventually shut down and things return to normal.
As for me, I will continue to use the ICAO phonetic alphabet for stateside contacts and when the other station has English as their primary language. However, I don't like to spend a lot of time in "pileups" when working DX stations and therefore I will continue to use geographical names and work the station generally along time before those who use ICAO phonetics get through.
Now getting back to satellite communications: Generally, since the vast majority of stations worked by United States operators do have English as their primary language, I definitely agree that the ICAO phonetics should generally be used. For stations who do not speak English as their primary language then using geographical names is definitely a viable alternative.
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, nh6vb Scheller [email protected] wrote:
From: nh6vb Scheller [email protected] Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics To: [email protected], [email protected], "amsat-bb" [email protected], [email protected] Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 3:16 PM
Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.....etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB
From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Glen, Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio Operator. Art, KC6UQH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Glen Zook Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM To: [email protected]; Mark Spencer Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K".
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer [email protected] wrote:
The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not.
It seems overly confusing to me.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing.
Stick to the standard and it will work fine.
Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY
----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Zook" [email protected]
Actually, the "NATO" phonetic alphabet was NOT developed by the military. It was developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization during the 1940s. It was adopted by NATO during the 1950s.
Again, my position is that the ICAO phonetics usually work very well with those who speak English as their first language. It works fairly well with those persons who do not speak English as their primary language but who have been specifically trained in the use of ICAO phonetics. It generally works very well on radio links that do not have extensive QRM or QSB. However, when dealing with untrained individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and when QSB and/or QRM is present, geographical names work considerably better.
The same arguments that are being presented herein are routinely posted in the discussions on QRZ.com concerning the "proper" phonetic alphabet. Frankly, the majority of people have made their decision and they are not going to change how they use the phonetic alphabets. Some use the ICAO phonetic alphabet no matter what and some people do adapt to the situation and use alternate phonetic alphabets of which the geographical name version is the most used of the alternate phonetic alphabets where amateur radio is concerned.
When working DX through a "pileup" the vast majority of time stations who use geographic names are going to get through a lot faster than those who insist on using just the ICAO phonetic alphabet. This is contrary to the opinion of those who insist that the ICAO phonetic alphabet "must" be used. However, for those stations who routinely work DX the vast majority do use geographical names when working DX. Now when working "stateside" the vast majority of those operators do use the ICAO phonetic alphabet.
I have "heard" these same arguments numerous times before concerning the ICAO phonetic alphabet versus geographical names. A relatively few persons who have insisted on the ICAO version do realize that the ICAO phonetics are not a "universal savior" where communications are concerned and do change their operating habits to fit the situation. But, those who insist that the ICAO version is the only "correct" phonetic alphabet generally are not convinced. Frankly, these discussions go on forever and no resolution ever happens. As such, those discussions are eventually shut down and things return to normal.
As for me, I will continue to use the ICAO phonetic alphabet for stateside contacts and when the other station has English as their primary language. However, I don't like to spend a lot of time in "pileups" when working DX stations and therefore I will continue to use geographical names and work the station generally along time before those who use ICAO phonetics get through.
Now getting back to satellite communications: Generally, since the vast majority of stations worked by United States operators do have English as their primary language, I definitely agree that the ICAO phonetics should generally be used. For stations who do not speak English as their primary language then using geographical names is definitely a viable alternative.
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, nh6vb Scheller [email protected] wrote:
From: nh6vb Scheller [email protected] Subject: RE: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics To: [email protected], [email protected], "amsat-bb" [email protected], [email protected] Date: Sunday, April 10, 2011, 3:16 PM
Glen et all, Once upon a time, during WWII, the phonetic alphabet started: Abei, Baker, Dog.....etc. With the advent of NATO, it was soon realized that the American version, or any ones else, was not suitable for international communication. Soon the NATO phonetic alphabet was developed by the military, and became international standard. The present international phonetic alphabet defines the letter K as KILO, not kilowatt. It would be very helpful for the amateur community to stick to established international standards and not bicker with their own cute substitutes. Citizens band has infiltrated ham radio to the point of satellite communication. Even as amateurs, let's be PAPA ROMEO OSCAR FOXTROT ECHO SIERRA SIERRA INDIA OSCAR NOVEMBER ALPHA LIMA. 73, Peter, NH6VB
From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:28:52 -0700 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Glen, Engineers use KW for kilowatt. That might explain my confusion using KW abbreviation as an occupation for 30 years before becoming an Amateur Radio Operator. Art, KC6UQH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Glen Zook Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:33 AM To: [email protected]; Mark Spencer Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
Although some people say kilowatt is two words, it definitely is not. In over 50 years of using "kilowatt" as a phonetic I have not once had a station think it is KW. Kilowatt makes it through QRM and QSB a LOT better than "kilo". Some operators do use "Kansas" or "Korea" for the letter "K".
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Mark Spencer [email protected] wrote:
The use of Kilowatt as a phonetic is a pet peeve of mine especially where there is a brief pause between kilo and watt. When I hear kilo I assume the letter k is being represented, then when I hear watt I have to decide if the sender is also representing the letter w or not.
It seems overly confusing to me.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 6031 (20110410) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:52:37 -0700, Jeff Moore wrote:
This is a bunch of baloney!
Stick to the standard and it will work fine.
Experience trumps experts. I have a friend who's name went into the log as "Dred" because a South American ham kept hearing "Golf" as "Dog". So much for standards.
I'll repeat my call several times to weak DX with the "standard" phonetics before switching to Geo name phonetics, which almost always get through in the first try. I'd rather be able to log the contact than please the standard bearers.
Or maybe I should just use the amplifier more often....
73
-Jim
-- It's been said that if you give a million monkeys a typewriter each, one of them will eventually type Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true.
I have found that Japan works much better than Juliet for the letter J. People keep hearing Juliet as India. don't know why, they don't sound anything alike, but that is what happens.
73s John AA5JG
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Shorney" [email protected] To: "amsat-bb" [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 1:38 AM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 17:52:37 -0700, Jeff Moore wrote:
This is a bunch of baloney!
Stick to the standard and it will work fine.
Experience trumps experts. I have a friend who's name went into the log as "Dred" because a South American ham kept hearing "Golf" as "Dog". So much for standards.
I'll repeat my call several times to weak DX with the "standard" phonetics before switching to Geo name phonetics, which almost always get through in the first try. I'd rather be able to log the contact than please the standard bearers.
Or maybe I should just use the amplifier more often....
73
-Jim
-- It's been said that if you give a million monkeys a typewriter each, one of them will eventually type Shakespeare. Thanks to the Internet, we now know this isn't true.
Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
I've also had a frequent problem with Oscar being heard as Alpha, so I usually over-emphasize the Oh part.
Greg - Kilo OH-scar 6 Tango Hotel
And, yes, Ernestine (Lily Tomblin) made it very clear that it is "K" as in Knight.
From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 01:53:53 +0000 Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I have found that Japan works much better than Juliet for the letter J. People keep hearing Juliet as India. don't know why, they don't sound anything alike, but that is what happens.
73s John AA5JG
I can assure you that in basically 52 years of working DX that geographical names definitely work better in the vast majority of situations than the ICAO phonetics. Yes, eventually, the ICAO phonetics will be understood. However, the station on the other end is generally going to work stations that are the easiest to recognize and that includes what phonetics are used. Therefore, how much time you spend in the pileup depends on how well the DX station understands your transmissions. As for me, I prefer not to spend a long time in a pileup!
I give up! The same arguments that are made time after time on QRZ.com for using only the ICAO phonetics are being made here. Frankly, the ICAO phonetics do NOT work well, if at all, for certain letters when the other station does not have English as their first language, especially when QRM or QSB is present.
I keep saying that ICAO phonetics are fine when English is the first language of the person or if the person who does not have English as their primary language has had formal training in the "proper" use of the ICAO phonetic alphabet. However, when the ICAO phonetic alphabet fails, then the operator needs to have an alternate phonetic alphabet available rather than continue to attempt to get the information across using the ICAO phonetics.
I am receiving numerous E-Mails from people who definitely agree that when working DX using geographical names usually works much better. But, those persons are hesitant to enter into this discussion.
Basically, everyone is chasing their tail. That is, those who think that the ICAO phonetics are sacred and need to be used no matter what against those who believe that certain circumstances require using an alternative phonetic alphabet. Few persons are going to change their minds!
One needs to look at the public safety arena where the ICAO phonetics are just not used. If the ICAO phonetics are so great then why is there an APCO phonetic alphabet? The basic answer is that public safety organizations have found that the ICAO phonetics just don't do a good job. Therefore, the APCO phonetic alphabet.
I can assure you that this discussion will never end because those who insist that the ICAO phonetics must be used no matter what seldom realize that they are no panacea and that alternate phonetics do have a place in radio communications.
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore [email protected] wrote:
This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing.
Stick to the standard and it will work fine.
When a station does not copy my call sign or anything else i use any mean to have them understand if international phonetics does not work i try something else period. Some called this the KISS way...
"-"
Luc Leblanc VE2DWE Skype VE2DWE www.qsl.net/ve2dwe DSTAR urcall VE2DWE WAC BASIC CW PHONE SATELLITE
Hi Glen, K9STH
I agree completely with you and via OSCAR-10, OSCAR-13 and AO40 as well in HF when calling stations in South America I realized that for best understanding it was better to use geographical linguage instead of the ICAO phonetics and my call letters i8CVS becomes Italia Ocho Canada' Victoria Santiago or Italia Ocho Condensador Valvula Sintonia and with QRM,QSB and weak signals my call was better understud by people of espanish linguage.
By the way when calling stations in USA the ICAO phonetics Italy Eight Charlie Victor Sierra sounded better for me.
73" de
i8CVS Domenico
----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Zook" [email protected] To: "amsat-bb" [email protected]; "Jeff Moore" [email protected] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 5:43 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: The Need for Phonetics
I can assure you that in basically 52 years of working DX that geographical names definitely work better in the vast majority of situations than the ICAO phonetics. Yes, eventually, the ICAO phonetics will be understood. However, the station on the other end is generally going to work stations that are the easiest to recognize and that includes what phonetics are used. Therefore, how much time you spend in the pileup depends on how well the DX station understands your transmissions. As for me, I prefer not to spend a long time in a pileup!
I give up! The same arguments that are made time after time on QRZ.com for using only the ICAO phonetics are being made here. Frankly, the ICAO phonetics do NOT work well, if at all, for certain letters when the other station does not have English as their first language, especially when QRM or QSB is present.
I keep saying that ICAO phonetics are fine when English is the first language of the person or if the person who does not have English as their primary language has had formal training in the "proper" use of the ICAO phonetic alphabet. However, when the ICAO phonetic alphabet fails, then the operator needs to have an alternate phonetic alphabet available rather than continue to attempt to get the information across using the ICAO phonetics.
I am receiving numerous E-Mails from people who definitely agree that when working DX using geographical names usually works much better. But, those persons are hesitant to enter into this discussion.
Basically, everyone is chasing their tail. That is, those who think that the ICAO phonetics are sacred and need to be used no matter what against those who believe that certain circumstances require using an alternative phonetic alphabet. Few persons are going to change their minds!
One needs to look at the public safety arena where the ICAO phonetics are just not used. If the ICAO phonetics are so great then why is there an APCO phonetic alphabet? The basic answer is that public safety organizations have found that the ICAO phonetics just don't do a good job. Therefore, the APCO phonetic alphabet.
I can assure you that this discussion will never end because those who insist that the ICAO phonetics must be used no matter what seldom realize that they are no panacea and that alternate phonetics do have a place in radio communications.
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore [email protected] wrote:
This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing.
Stick to the standard and it will work fine.
_______________________________________________ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
See comments in line below:
Jeff Moore -- KE7ACY
----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Zook" [email protected]
I can assure you that in basically 52 years of working DX that geographical names definitely work better in the vast majority of situations than the ICAO phonetics. Yes, eventually, the ICAO phonetics will be understood. However, the station on the other end is generally going to work stations that are the easiest to recognize and that includes what phonetics are used. Therefore, how much time you spend in the pileup depends on how well the DX station understands your transmissions. As for me, I prefer not to spend a long time in a pileup!
<== If everybody is using the same phonetic alphabet, then there shouldn't be any problem understanding what one is saying.
I give up! The same arguments that are made time after time on QRZ.com for using only the ICAO phonetics are being made here. Frankly, the ICAO phonetics do NOT work well, if at all, for certain letters when the other station does not have English as their first language, especially when QRM or QSB is present.
<== Don't you ever wonder why you keep seeing the same arguments?? The ITU phonetic alphabet works fine if it's used.
I keep saying that ICAO phonetics are fine when English is the first language of the person or if the person who does not have English as their primary language has had formal training in the "proper" use of the ICAO phonetic alphabet. However, when the ICAO phonetic alphabet fails, then the operator needs to have an alternate phonetic alphabet available rather than continue to attempt to get the information across using the ICAO phonetics.
<== "Training" comes from use. What I don't understand is how you can advocate a phonetic alphabet that by your own admission isn't even documented legitemately anywhere let alone recognized or recommended.
I am receiving numerous E-Mails from people who definitely agree that when working DX using geographical names usually works much better. But, those persons are hesitant to enter into this discussion.
<== Could it be that they understand the quicksand you're standing on?
Basically, everyone is chasing their tail. That is, those who think that the ICAO phonetics are sacred and need to be used no matter what against those who believe that certain circumstances require using an alternative phonetic alphabet. Few persons are going to change their minds!
<== There's nothing "sacred" about the ITU phonetic alphabet. It's just the current Internationally recognized and recommended standard that should be used. Anything else just confuses people.
One needs to look at the public safety arena where the ICAO phonetics are just not used. If the ICAO phonetics are so great then why is there an APCO phonetic alphabet? The basic answer is that public safety organizations have found that the ICAO phonetics just don't do a good job. Therefore, the APCO phonetic alphabet.
<== Public safety organizations use their own phonetic alphabet for the same reason they use their own numeric codes, to confuse the general public and make it harder for them to understand the info being passed. It has nothing to do with one being easier to understand than the other.
I can assure you that this discussion will never end because those who insist that the ICAO phonetics must be used no matter what seldom realize that they are no panacea and that alternate phonetics do have a place in radio communications.
<== You're right! As long as people argue against the accepted, documented, recommended prevailing standard, the discussion will go on. Come up with a documented, better phonetic alphabet and get it internationally recognized and recommended and then this discussion will go away (or at least be changed to an argument between the old and new standard). As long as there is no official alternative (and I don't give a rip about how long the geographic non-documented non-standard has been used), the internationally recognized standard is what should be used. You can play your word games all day long on DX, but as soon as you start working emcomm - you'd better be using the accepted standard or you're putting people's lives at stake.
Glen, K9STH
Website: http://k9sth.com
--- On Sun, 4/10/11, Jeff Moore [email protected] wrote:
This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing.
Stick to the standard and it will work fine.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:17:49 -0700, Jeff Moore wrote:
<== Could it be that they understand the quicksand you're standing on?
No. We know from long experience (35+ years in my case) that Glen is right.
73
-Jim
-- Ham Radio NU0C Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.S.A. TR7/RV7/R7A/L7, TR6/RV6, T4XC/R4C/L4B, NCL2000, SB104A, R390A, GT550A/RV550A, HyGain 3750, IBM PS/2 - all vintage, all the time!
"Give a man a URL, and he will learn for an hour; teach him to Google, and he will learn for a lifetime."
HyGain 3750 User's Group - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HyGain_3750/ http://incolor.inetnebr.com/jshorney http://www.nebraskaghosts.org
At 07:52 PM 4/10/2011, you wrote:
This is a bunch of baloney! Your "unpublished" non-standard just confuses most people. I've listened to hours of DX and the ITU alphabet gets through just fine. It's when people start throwing out their cutesy made up alphabet that it gets confusing.
I could not agree more.
over the years I think I have heard it all. But nothing and I due mean nothing works like the old standard.
It's confusing enough living in a town named "LOUISIANA" in the state of " MISSOURI.
John, W0JAB
participants (9)
-
Glen Zook -
Greg D. -
i8cvs -
Jeff Moore -
Jim Shorney -
John Becker -
John Geiger -
Luc Leblanc -
nh6vb Scheller